Slashdot Mirror


From Now On You'll Be Able To Access NASA Research For Free (vice.com)

An anonymous reader writes:Fancy some super nerdy bedtime reading? NASA has announced that it will now provide public access to all journal articles on research funded by the agency. Any scientists publishing NASA-funded work will be required to upload their papers to a free, online database called PubSpace within a year of publication. PubSpace is managed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) PubMed Central, which archives biomedical research. You can see NASA-funded studies here, with recent examples including a paper on cardiovascular disease in Apollo astronauts and one on Martian tsunamis caused by meteor impacts. NASA explains that the new web portal is a response to a 2013 government request for federally-funded research to be more accessible. There are a few obvious exceptions to what's included, such as and material that's related to national security or affected by export controls. NASA's openness follows a trend to make science results more accessible outside of published, often paywalled journals.

64 comments

  1. Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I want to be able to access all of the data they collect for free (posting Anon. so the NSA can't find out who I am (that was sarcasm by the way) ).

  2. From Now On You'll Be Able To Access NSA Data .. by burni2 · · Score: 1

    .. for a fee.

  3. Re:From Now On You'll Be Able To Access NSA Data . by npslider · · Score: 1

    Anything's for sale... at the right price!

  4. So They Aren't Charging Us For What by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    we already paid for. Gee, Thanks.

    1. Re:So They Aren't Charging Us For What by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      A lot of their material has been online for years:

      http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/sear...

  5. Except by ls671 · · Score: 2
    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  6. The culture of modern science by npslider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The greater access everyone has to primary source material the better. When most people are only learning about new discoveries from mass media that cites research papers, much is lost and bias is introduced. The results of research should not be a walled fortress for the elite in-crowd, but an open, accessible library of knowledge for all.

    1. Re:The culture of modern science by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      When most people are only learning about new discoveries from mass media that cites research papers, much is lost and more bias is introduced

      FIFY

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:The culture of modern science by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      The greater access everyone has to primary source material the better. When most people are only learning about new discoveries from mass media that cites research papers, much is lost and bias is introduced. The results of research should not be a walled fortress for the elite in-crowd, but an open, accessible library of knowledge for all.

      How much you want to bet you aren't getting the raw data ?

    3. Re:The culture of modern science by npslider · · Score: 1

      No doubt!

      The raw data is probably as reliable as the moon cheese is tasty.

    4. Re:The culture of modern science by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      How much you want to bet you aren't getting the raw data ?

      Well, when I click on the link that is supposed to be a NASA-funded journal article about tsunamis on Mars, I get taken to a Motherboard story instead. Slashdot is still powned by vice, right, and the editors love clicks to get ad revenues.

    5. Re:The culture of modern science by npslider · · Score: 1

      Good point. Depending on whether a precision tool was manufactured by a Democrat or a Republican will certainly alter the measurements produced.

      When we finally allow only Right-wing conservatives to create scientific instrumentation, we will all see what a hoax man-caused global climate change really is!

      But seriously... yeah, any human research endeavor (aka "pure science") will always have some level of bias because it is done by humans who by their very nature are biased creatures.

    6. Re:The culture of modern science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Information should be free. But most of it's locked down and for purchase. Kind of make 99.9% (swag) of scientific arguments made nonsensical. Since the vast majority of people 'in the know' never had access to information. They just take it for granted what is told to them is the truth.

    7. Re:The culture of modern science by npslider · · Score: 1

      GOOD RAW data on Slashdot is as common as a glass of iced tea, complete with round ice cubes, on a mahogany table in the lowest depths of Hell during a heat wave.

    8. Re:The culture of modern science by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The raw data you already get is actually rawer than you might want. Roll-out-your-calibration and that kind of stuff.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re: The culture of modern science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Commoners are not interested in science and have no clue on how the scientific method works. Why throw pearls to the pigs? There are reasons science must be left to professional scientists.

    10. Re:The culture of modern science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you want to bet that you're too stupid to understand what the raw data even means.

    11. Re: The culture of modern science by npslider · · Score: 1

      Some "commoners" actually do care, even if they do not subscribe to scientific journals or earn money through research grants.

      Keeping science to the "Professional scientists" is the very root of the problem. The very statement reeks of elitism. The scientific method and sharing of results is supposed to be a process, not a social class for the "enlightened ones".

      How many discoveries were made by people not part of the "in crowd" The peer review system is good in theory, but with such a small subset of the population represented it's like inbreeding - too few eyes, leads to group think and limited opposing views that may find holes in existing suppositions and paradigms.

    12. Re:The culture of modern science by npslider · · Score: 1

      What does raw data mean oh so enlightened AC?

    13. Re:The culture of modern science by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Lets show some sound economic common sense. They are not giving away stuff free, they are feeding knowledge back into the community in order to get ideas back, often for free. Knowledge only has value when it is kept alive, buried and forgotten it is worthless, out there and circulating means it is generating new ideas, that is quite simply the way it works and it is a very economically sound and logical idea for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to promote. Also they have recruitment issues and the need to get potential new recruits willing to learn the knowledge NASA needs to keep advancing (knowledge those trainees foot the bill for). So NASA needs to promote space industries, space employment and a future for many more citizens in space and it needs to release knowledge, multi-media content and even free computer games, we are either going for evolve from our cocoon planet into the rest of the galaxy or disappear from the galaxy stuck in that cocoon. Now all they need to do is figure out how to shift all the wasted war dollars into long term investment space dollars (quite a long, long, term investment, but the payback is quite literally the galaxy, well, at least a significant part of it ;) ).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:The culture of modern science by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You should probably start with this specification, unless you're interested in the non-camera instrument data.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  7. Similar to PubMed by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Informative

    PubMed is the open access research paper depository for all federally funded medical research. It's open and free too.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Similar to PubMed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not similar. It *is* PubMed.

    2. Re:Similar to PubMed by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it's PubSpace.

      Just because the depository behind it is hosted on the same server doesn't mean it's not different.

      One of our servers in our department hosts something like 14 databases, each of which has a few hundred tables of data. Permissions and access vary between all of them.

      If you go in through the PubSpace portal, you see space-related research, but you probably won't see the other stuff. I frequently get notified of scientific articles on different accumulator lists, such as genetics, biofuel, and environmental sciences filters. They all point to the same journal article, but the reference that pointed to them is a different framework.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Similar to PubMed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PubMed is a database and has nothing to do with access to the papers.

  8. What about the data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Will NASA make the data in those papers freely available in their entirety? That's just as important as the papers. I'd sure like to see the raw unadjusted climate data sets.

    1. Re:What about the data? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Are you intending to run them on your home supercomputer? Will Jarvis to the corrections for you too?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:What about the data? by npslider · · Score: 1

      Are you intending to run them on your home supercomputer?

      An original Pentium system should suffice with a small chance of 1+1 occasionally equaling 2.00000000001

    3. Re:What about the data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Data returned by NASA missions is all available to the public, free of charge. For data from missions of planetary exploration, for example, go to the Planetary Data System (pds.nasa.gov). Note that these data are in a special format that is not recognized by browsers, etc. NASA data can also be accessed through NASA's new data portal, data.nasa.gov.

  9. Subtle redaction by Shag · · Score: 1

    There are a few obvious exceptions to what's included, such as and material that's related to national security or affected by export controls.

    Such as what and material that's related to national security or affected by export controls? One or more words seem to be missing there.
    I understand, they can't tell us what it is that we can't see. Got it. :)

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    1. Re:Subtle redaction by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It was redacted before the submission was made. :)

      Probably private data, but I can only guess what the submitter meant to say there.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Subtle redaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably private data, but I can only guess what the submitter meant to say there.

      Submitter? Those words were plagiarized directly Victoria Turk in the linked article. Slashdot has gotten better about this recently, but the anonymous coward didn't write that and was given credit by the editors here for writing it.

    3. Re:Subtle redaction by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      NASA has been involved in lots of classified stuff, as I understand, over the years—their kind of rockets aren't all that different from missiles after all.

      As far as export control goes, there is a lot of stuff on the export control lists; radation hardened computers, and most anything that can take stuff into space and/or back, among many many other things.

  10. the exceptions list is small. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. results and findings of throwing things off the 5th floor including preliminary impact analysis of the rolly chair with the bum wheel
    2. design and analysis fundamentals of keiths weird potentially fish based lunches
    3. who backed into nicoles 1994 Toyota Tercel, and preliminary research findings into nicoles general inability to park in lot G
    4. analytic research and results of the exploratory discovery research into why the second floor refrigerator smells like horse farts.
    5. concluded final analysis and prepared summary of how the break room fan makes a really scary noise and causes a lot of anxiety
    6. "oh god christ theres a bee in the suit" and additional redacted commentary from launch events.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:the exceptions list is small. by npslider · · Score: 2

      6. "oh god christ theres a bee in the suit" and additional redacted commentary from launch events.

      The bee in question must first approve the release of this information.

  11. this is a good thing, but not enough... by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually had the privilege of advising the govt to do this a few years ago, so it is nice that it is happening. But even then, NASA was progressive and required open access to data and more from their supported publications. This is a notch up.

    The problem is that it needs to be mandated across all journals, and the journals then will face a major problem -- how will they survive when one no longer needs to buy journal subscriptions to fund the journals? Government support isn't a good answer for lots of reasons. But what answer IS a good answer?

    I don't know, but they'd better find it soon, because the Internet has made old-style journals largely obsolete and the public will no longer tolerate not being able to read the research they, after all, ultimately paid for. It is my profound hope that the NSF and other major agencies follow suit immediately. We'll see if e.g. Physical Review can survive it and deal with what comes either way.

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    1. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by Coren22 · · Score: 0, Troll

      But even then, NASA was progressive and required open access to data and more from their supported publications.

      Except data related to climate research as no one should have access to that but climate scientists! /s

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that NASA required open access to the data but does not provide money to fund securing and maintaining that access. Also not considered: if that data happens to be proprietary algorithms and code. Typical government mandate.

    3. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but they'd better find it soon, because the Internet has made old-style journals largely obsolete

      Journals are still relevant as repositories for material and easy browsing tools. I've found amazing things just because I decided to browse through a journal, that I'd never spend the time googling, if I even knew what the best search terms would be.

      But OpenAccess is already found.

      and the public will no longer tolerate not being able to read the research they, after all, ultimately paid for.

      This truly is a 1%-er issue. The vast majority of the public has no interest in reading this material, and the vast majority of those wouldn't understand what they were reading even if they did. You are posting in a very select subset of "the public".

    4. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      This is not true. In fact, it is not true by law, and was not true by law then. You simply haven't tried. The DATA is readily available from NASA funded research (and often the papers are/were too). The real problem, as I said, is that the old way the journals ran from the invention of the proceedings of the royal society to the present has been dead for at least five years, but nobody knows how to keep the journals (a desirable thing, believe me) and their refereeing and editorial process alive without the money Universities kick back for subscriptions. If everything is free on the web, there are no subscription fees and the journals die. If the journals die, it is as disastrous a consequence as trying to run the US with only a president and congress and no supreme court.

      Yes, there are alternatives to paid journals, including some online/free ones, but they ultimately rely on humans contributing time (or to put it another way, having their living paid for some other way). That's not bad, but you can see why there could be problems with this approach as well. It remains to be seen what will work and not introduce even more sources of bias than there are in the current system (which is not above reproach -- gatekeeping and worse abound in at least some journals).

      BTW, I'm not a fan of a lot of what passes for climate science or NASA GISS, but you do NASA in general a disservice if you think that GISS was somehow exempted from the law. Or if you think that everybody in NASA GISS are members of a vast conspiracy and not intellectually honest. James Hansen, for example is not everybody, even if he should have been replaced before he even started as head of GISS, or at worst the first time he spoke ex cathedra predicting 5 meter SLR. In my opinion.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    5. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      I disagree. There is a whole world of "public", and a lot of them don't have access to a University library. And no, science should not be confined to the cloistered halls of academe. You simply don't know who might come up with a new discovery or objection to a published work, or who might be inspired by one to invent something new. In addition to US citizens that paid for the research, there are young people in India, China, Africa who will only have the opportunity to read real scientific papers if they are open access. Do we WANT to keep the rest of the world in a state of non-participatory ignorance? Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

      I would say no. And I agree, journals have a useful purpose, or even many useful purposes. But still, paywalled journals are, IMO, doomed. I think they'll be lucky if they get a year of grace from the granting agencies on the one hand, and nearly everybody puts their own work up on the web anyway -- it's just hard to find it and difficult to see if it actually made it through the refereeing process in the form posted without being able to access the actual published article.

      The internet is not through evolving. We'll see where this ends up. If we live long enough...;-)

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    6. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I remember the STAR journal from way back when. Monthly publication about 1 inch thick, listed science, technical, and research papers. A paragraph abstract for each paper, cost and where to order. I haven't seen what has become of it. There are sites like this http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/ and this http://www.sti.nasa.gov/ though I haven't gone through them lately. It can be very tedious finding stuff. I remember few years ago when it was pulled offline ("OMG the Chinese are stealing ALL our secrets!") which was a huge setback (basically defeated all what NASA stands for). When I do search through it, I find a lot of esoteric papers of narrow focus.

      I remember ordering a couple things from STAR journal in 1970s, most things were incomprehensible for me. Small paper on "What Everyone Should Know About Solving Differential Equations" and "Space Construction Database." The SCD was a whopping 500 page document (not a book but with really long staples) illustrating different space structures carried out by the Space Shuttle with lists of materials and assembly times. One structure was a huge platform that looks like ISS but a communications platform at 23,000 miles GSO. One platform to hold several "satellites" kind of like a mountain top with a hundred repeaters and TV relay stations.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    7. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I disagree. There is a whole world of "public", and a lot of them don't have access to a University library.

      Yes, there is a whole world of public, and just because they don't have access to a library (we are talking about journals, not libraries, btw) doesn't mean they have a burning desire to read scientific journal articles. "The pubic", for the most part, and in a vast majority, just don't care. Otherwise this problem would have been solved a long time ago.

      And no, science should not be confined to the cloistered halls of academe.

      Why do you think are you disagreeing with me?

      Do we WANT to keep the rest of the world in a state of non-participatory ignorance?

      Can you please disagree with something I actually said, not what you wanted me to say?

      But still, paywalled journals are, IMO, doomed.

      I assume you are not intending to limit the discussion to only web-accessible pay journals ("paywalled"), so I disagree with you. The fact that they still exist proves this. People pay for convenience. Professionally published, indexed, and collated journal articles are a convenience. That I can pick up a journal on a certain topic and find articles relevant to that topic is a convenience, compared to grepping a website with all kinds of articles on it. I've found so many interesting things by scanning the table of contents of journals, compared to specific searches for a topic, to ever think that this way of learning will go away.

      A good sign that people will pay for the convenience is that many of the professional scientists who have access to library or personal copies of journals still subscribe to things like Nature, which does nothing but collate and summarize journal articles. Were the convenience unwanted, nobody would subscribe, they'd just read the journals directly. In fact, the convenience of finding things in one's field of study is so great that they'll put up with the wind range of irrelevant material that Nature carries.

    8. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by pz · · Score: 1

      The NIH has been requiring this for some time now, and the important part is that the papers are freely available after one year. So the journals get to reap the benefits that their selection process provides for a given period of time. Thus far, they've been able to handle survival under such circumstances and some (*cough* Elsevier *cough*) have even thrived.

      And note that I slipped in an important observation that gets often overlooked: journals provide an important filtering mechanism that has, thus far, not been sucessfully reproduced elsewhere. While there clearly are exceptions, and I'm sure nearly every person who reads scientific articles has their favorites, generally put the more respected journals have more stringent vetting processes that lead to a higher concentration of quality publications. Given that there are too many papers published to read in nearly any given field, having someone apply a filtering process to pick out the ones more likely to be worth reading is an extremely valuable service.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    9. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by pz · · Score: 1

      One other thing that journals do, when performing their filtering process is force the authors to re-write. When my papers get rejected, I don't turn around and just resubmit elsewhere, I take the criticism to heart and address it. My best written papers are ones that were rejected (or required major revisions) two or three times. My most highly referenced paper was rejected from three journals before being accepted (and then was covered in the international press). Each rewrite was painful, but it is a much, much better paper than when it was first submitted.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    10. Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... by Layzej · · Score: 1

      The problem with James Hansen is he has a history of being right.

  12. Re:From Now On You'll Be Able To Access NSA Data . by burni2 · · Score: 1

    To the contrary, this is different.

    Hacking into NSA: effort worth 12 million â,

    Seeing the face of NSA when giving away their virtual counterparts of predator drones and hellfire missiles for an apple and a dime ..priceless

    Sad thing, when you wait 3 yrs. before selling that, back then brand new smartphone .. it means it isn't new and it was used by you.

  13. not far enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything not classified should be available, every update, every file save, incomplete, half written, browser web history.

    anything a NASA employee does or thinks during work hours is not private information and the public should have access to it.

  14. Re:From Now On You'll Be Able To Access NSA Data . by npslider · · Score: 1

    Getting "original prints" of NASA moon landing photographs: Both arms and a leg
    Finding the original film footage of the *actual* NASA moon landings with 12 minutes of previously unrelased footage from stage 15: Priceless

  15. OUTSTANDING FBI NEWS HERE %%% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can stare into space FOR FREE!

    Windows ANNIVERSARY 10 FREE!

    the lollipop kids.. the lollipop kids...

  16. #nationalsecurity by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    shame that the interest of national security will automatically include anything half way interesting. granted we are talking about NASA papers not like USAF, so its not like there was a chance to see anything cool about aliens.

  17. arxiv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least within astrophysics, essentially all papers are now posted to arxiv.org and are already available to anyone with an internet connection. This policy seems to be so late in coming that it will have no effect. Are other research fields so different?

  18. Right After.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right After it's been totally censored by NASA, especially the false horizons.

  19. Read that as NSA and holly fuck by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    has American embraced freedom over night?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re: Read that as NSA and holly fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying that freedom is more important than night??

  20. Delayed? by DriveDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good, but a year??? How about 30 days? How about 72 hours? How about simultaneously?

  21. It will provide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean they are going to publish them themselves or that we are now subsidizing through taxes the journals fighting tooth and nail to stifle the sharing of knowledge elsewhere?

  22. ITAR lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except for the fact that a large portion of the space work NASA does falls under the provisions of ITAR, which basically made it a crime to disclose on the internet dual-use military technologies (everything involved in missiles and satellites basically) since you can't realistically stop foreign downloads. This is why NTRS became a barren wasteland for a while when NASA went through and rechecked all the papers there for ITAR material.

    Also, why PubSpace, rather than the existing NTRS? Is it that whole central government research repository push from the data.gov folks?

  23. Climate data has been available for a decade... by Layzej · · Score: 1

    The code is available here. Papers here. NASA uses station data compiled by NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST v4 (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations),

    According to the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies "Anyone can download it, run it for themselves and get the answer before we update our website every month."

    1. Re:Climate data has been available for a decade... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you meant to reply to the person above me?

      I was just pointing out that many of the climate models run on supercomputers, so it isn't like the average person has that kind of computing power available.

      Later on in this article's comment section, I did mention the difficulty in getting access to the data, but generally, that isn't NASA data, but the Earth station data, as it is copyrighted to prevent the public from using it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Climate data has been available for a decade... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The code is available here. Papers here. NASA uses station data compiled by NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST v4 (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations),

      According to the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies "Anyone can download it, run it for themselves and get the answer before we update our website every month."

      I find it fucking hilarious that these jackasses are asking for the raw data when it's already available and has been available for years.

      Next time some joker whines about raw data the answer will be: "Have you fucking looked?"

    3. Re:Climate data has been available for a decade... by Layzej · · Score: 1

      True enough, but some can be run right from the web. Here's a fun resource: http://climatemodels.uchicago....

  24. +1 for Aaron Swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

    enough said .... it's a positive thing.

    This hopefully sets an example for the Academic world to be free as it should be otherwise is there any hope for the human species ?

  25. Gee ... Thanks by NoSalt · · Score: 0

    Yes, thank you for allowing me to freely access that which my tax dollars helped pay for. </sarcasm>